Poll of the Day > Gay Marriage Vote in Australia is heading toward a SHOCK DEFEAT with a NO!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

An Academic Study says that although twitter opinions point to a heavy 72% in favour of gay marriage, it is now heading towards a narrow defeat with a slim majority win for a NO victory for GAY MARRIAGE in Australia!!

It says that while 72% of tweets favoured same sex marriage, less than 15% were sent by people over the age of 55

David Tuffley and Bela Stantic used advanced data analytics which they say have proven uncannily accurate at predicting the outcomes of hard to call polls, including the US Presidential Election which they said Trump would win.

On the face of it, it seems like an overwhelmingly amount of people will vote Yes but adjusting the low proportion of tweets from over 55's and matching it against 36% of the voter pool they represent, support from yes comes down to 49%.

It is now likely a slim win for the No as one of the problems with predicting poll outcomes is people often are reluctant to say out loud what they really think in the age of political correctness

What would you vote if your country had a gay marriage vote? let's see what people will vote

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/02/03/45B7FF8300000578-5041493-image-a-23_1509592654701.jpg
---

Full Throttle posted...

An Academic Study says that although twitter opinions point to a heavy 72% in favour of gay marriage, it is now heading towards a narrow defeat with a slim majority win for a NO victory for GAY MARRIAGE in Australia!!

Which is why you can't rely on Twitter for public opinion.
---

Zeus posted...

Full Throttle posted...

An Academic Study says that although twitter opinions point to a heavy 72% in favour of gay marriage, it is now heading towards a narrow defeat with a slim majority win for a NO victory for GAY MARRIAGE in Australia!!

Which is why you can't rely on Twitter for public opinion.

This.

Young people love to whine about the world's problems, but when it comes to actually doing something to make a difference...
---

Well that's sad.

I'd join Bearing in not voting. There are serious implications for freedom of expression in a yes vote that I am not ok with, but at the same time I have no particular objection to gay marriage on the general principle that adults should be free to enter any voluntary living arrangements they want with each other.
---

I voted yes but all along I've assumed it wouldn't get up.

Yes votes would have had to have won by a massive amount for the government to go with it, without that it's easy for them to just not do anything now.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I'd join Bearing in not voting. There are serious implications for freedom of expression in a yes vote that I am not ok with, but at the same time I have no particular objection to gay marriage on the general principle that adults should be free to enter any voluntary living arrangements they want with each other.

Ugh, bearing pulled that spaghetti logic piece together with blatant lies.

That one guy that punched the prime minister didn't even do it because of his views on homosexuality. We know this because he told us in an interview. On live TV.

It's just silly old people being old people as per usual, clinging on to the last remains of their fading past.

I imagine he doesn't even identify as a Conservative, which is the most impressive feat of cognitive dissonance these YouTube skeptics like to pull off. I think they know how unpopular the word is.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I'd join Bearing in not voting.

Then you are effectively saying no. Stand up for something.

There are serious implications for freedom of expression in a yes vote that I am not ok with

Such as? Don't make it out to be anything more than it is-either you agree with gay marriage or you don't.

but at the same time I have no particular objection to gay marriage on the general principle that adults should be free to enter any voluntary living arrangements they want with each other.

So what's the problem?
---

Too bad our unaccountable activist judges took the matter into their own hands and didn't give us the opportunity to vote on it.
---

If I had to vote on the issue, I'd vote yes and write "drunk chicks and bent dicks" on the paper so that somebody's day would be brightened with laughter.
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Too bad our unaccountable activist judges took the matter into their own hands and didn't give us the opportunity to vote on it.

Aside from the stunning amount of butthurt in that post, they have, as much as governments can these days. In the age of constant 2nd guessing and complaints about every decision from one side or another, they felt it was safest (albeit very wasteful) to have what amounts to a survey but if the survey comes back with a majority no then they'll shelf it and have full deniability.
tl;dr-Put aside your issues, use the only voice you're going to get and answer the question on the form: Gay marriage, yes or no.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

There are serious implications for freedom of expression in a yes vote that I am not ok with

Is this the "priests will be forced to officiate gay weddings against their will" bullshit again, or is this some new total bullshit?
---

dainkinkaide posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

There are serious implications for freedom of expression in a yes vote that I am not ok with

Is this the "priests will be forced to officiate gay weddings against their will" bullshit again, or is this some new total bullshit?

I always enjoy this argment-what makes them think that any couple wants the person officiating it to be there "against their will" and how does that even happen, kidnapping?
Trust me, no couple, gay or straight would want someone giving them attitude at the ceremony so it won't be an issue.
---

sharia law is bad!
unless its from OUR religion
---

Full Throttle posted...

What would you vote if there was a gay marriage vote?

I probably wouldn't vote at all as I never vote on anything like that. However if it was a must I'd be for gay marriage. A marriage to me is two people who love each other celebrating their love and showing commitment to each other. Doesn't really matter what gender or sex the two people involved are.
---

Syntheticon posted...

dainkinkaide posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

There are serious implications for freedom of expression in a yes vote that I am not ok with

Is this the "priests will be forced to officiate gay weddings against their will" bullshit again, or is this some new total bullshit?

I always enjoy this argment-what makes them think that any couple wants the person officiating it to be there "against their will" and how does that even happen, kidnapping?
Trust me, no couple, gay or straight would want someone giving them attitude at the ceremony so it won't be an issue.

Doesn't seem to bother them when it's a florist, baker, or photographer.
---

Yellow posted...

Ugh, bearing pulled that spaghetti logic piece together with blatant lies.

There's considerable evidence that the Australian government tightened its hate speech laws for the vote: countless news articles reported this, and official statements from the government that were on no uncertain terms.

So what blatant lies, again?

Because one of Bearing's primary objections was that this was a fairly aggressive and patently one-sided clampdown on free expression. And, given the vague wording of the expanded hate-speech code, AND Australia's spotty record of free expression to begin with (to the point of having only defacto Freedom of Expression, but no clearly defined legal right to it as exists in the US and to a lesser extent Canada) I would tend to call this concern legitimate - albeit in a way peculiar to Australia.

Yellow posted...

We know this because he told us in an interview. On live TV.

Replace "We know" with, "I believe". You take him at his word that he attacked that guy for being a disgusting person (his words), but that had nothing to do with his stance on gay marriage - an extremely incendiary point of disagreement for some people.

I mean, it's not like such an attack fits the literal definition of terrorism if he had done it due to a specific political position, so he has no incentive to lie. </sarcasm>

Yellow posted...

I imagine he doesn't even identify as a Conservative, which is the most impressive feat of cognitive dissonance these YouTube skeptics like to pull off. I think they know how unpopular the word is.

Yeah, if you're some nut job viewing them from what Steven Pinker calls "The Left Pole". Anyone who's center-left looks very conservative to a Marxist Crybabby Tumblr Snowflake with 64 genders and a bad haircut.

I've never seen Bearing stream his political compass test, but if he's anything like Sargon, or the vast majority of Sargon's followers (self included), he's firmly on the left.

Syntheticon posted...

Then you are effectively saying no. Stand up for something.

I consider it standing up for free expression. I support gay marriage, but not at the expense of free expression. Politics is full of compromises. I prefer this to go through with a yes, but I care how that yes is achieved and disapprove of things yes camp has done. The only (hypothetical) leverage I have here is to not vote yes.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

if he's anything like Sargon

What convenient timing, I've just started watching Sargon vids.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Replace "We know" with, "I believe". You take him at his word that he attacked that guy for being a disgusting person (his words), but that had nothing to do with his stance on gay marriage - an extremely incendiary point of disagreement for some people.

I mean, it's not like such an attack fits the literal definition of terrorism if he had done it due to a specific political position, so he has no incentive to lie. </sarcasm>

This wall of text is meaningless hot air disguised as coherent thought. I believe you're trying to vomit words and confuse me into submission like an animal puffing up its fur. I give you a D-.

Bearing claimed he did it for LGBT reasons, even though he was a fucking Anarchist and he said he "always wanted to headbutt a fucking fascist".

If Bearing said he was an SJW, that means he's making things up.

Are the results in?

Remember when the polls were against Trump :/
---

Yellow posted...

This wall of text is meaningless hot air disguised as coherent thought

Pfft, like you know anything about coherent thoughts. I've yet to see you post any.
---

Nope. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Don't have a problem with people being gay just that they care about being married. Come up with your own marriage ritual maybe?

xjayguyx posted...

Nope. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Don't have a problem with people being gay just that they care about being married. Come up with your own marriage ritual maybe?

Well, we gave them civil unions, and they swore they'd be happy with that, but then they decided they weren't.
---

wait what!!! Interent doesn't dictate on what mass people think. Get out of here!

It thought everyone would agree cheese on the top of the hamburger.
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

xjayguyx posted...

Nope. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Don't have a problem with people being gay just that they care about being married. Come up with your own marriage ritual maybe?

Well, we gave them civil unions, and they swore they'd be happy with that, but then they decided they weren't.

well you gave them something that doesnt entitle them to the same benefits an actual marriage would get, so why would they be happy with receiving something that isnt actually equal to marriage?

If there were a vote here, I'd have to vote no.

It is legal here, so the only thing that could be voted about is abolishment and I cannot think of a single reason why it should be abolished...
---

They stapled the vote to something dumb...

Hey! Do you support this tax freedom and mandatory brain slug bill?
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Too bad our unaccountable activist judges took the matter into their own hands and didn't give us the opportunity to vote on it.

A vote on this matter is pointless. The vast, vast majority of the people who would vote against gay marriage are straight people who are never going to be affected in any way by gay marriage's legalization. There's no reason to have the general public vote on a matter that doesn't affect the general public in any way.
---

For those confused, the ACTUAL marriage vote was done by paper ballots not Twitter.
---

Hasn't Australia tried and failed to get gay marriage to pass more than once already?
---

I accidently voted no cause touchscreens suck and my phone was being slow. There is a yes vote counted as a no vote in there. Ie. Mine
---

adjl posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Too bad our unaccountable activist judges took the matter into their own hands and didn't give us the opportunity to vote on it.

A vote on this matter is pointless. The vast, vast majority of the people who would vote against gay marriage are straight people who are never going to be affected in any way by gay marriage's legalization. There's no reason to have the general public vote on a matter that doesn't affect the general public in any way.

Considering that it's already difficult to book a hall for a wedding and it can bottleneck the supply of wedding goods, that's an outright lie.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I consider it standing up for free expression. I support gay marriage, but not at the expense of free expression. Politics is full of compromises. I prefer this to go through with a yes, but I care how that yes is achieved and disapprove of things yes camp has done. The only (hypothetical) leverage I have here is to not vote yes.

Then you are still effectively voting no. You keep talking about free will and free expression but haven't actually said what you think this vote will do to people's existing rights in this matter. If your only issue is the expanded hate speech rules, how do you think that will be a problem? If you're not racist, xenophobic or homophobic it's extremely unlikely that this will affect you in any significant way-these are views that don't advance us as a society and therefore we don't need.
Unless the form you received is different from mine, it only asks one question. Answer that question and mail it back. Don't make it out to be anything it's not, don't conflate it with a grand political statement-it isn't even legally binding, it's just an expensive prop for politicians to shelve the issue if they get a negative outcome.
If you genuinely believe that allowing gay marriage is the decent thing to do, mark the appropriate box and send it back. Otherwise, you're saying no, that's all there is to it. Regardless of however you dress it up in your mind, that's what the situation is, you will have voted no.
---

Syntheticon posted...

these are views that don't advance us as a society

YOU DON'T DECIDE WHAT VIEWS "ADVANCE SOCIETY"
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Syntheticon posted...

these are views that don't advance us as a society

YOU DON'T DECIDE WHAT VIEWS "ADVANCE SOCIETY"

Apparently, I've struck a nerve lol
Explain to me how racist, xenophobic or homophobic views and behaviors are helping society to progress?
For extra credit, explain how you aren't contributing to those issues by not voting yes?
---

i haven't voted.
indifferent to gays and indifferent to marriage
and i would need to leave the house to vote

TheThirdDay posted...

Zeus posted...

Full Throttle posted...

An Academic Study says that although twitter opinions point to a heavy 72% in favour of gay marriage, it is now heading towards a narrow defeat with a slim majority win for a NO victory for GAY MARRIAGE in Australia!!

Which is why you can't rely on Twitter for public opinion.

This.

Young people love to whine about the world's problems, but when it comes to actually doing something to make a difference...

I agree with Zeus but not for the reason you stated.
It more like: Twitter is a vocal minority and even if every young person on Twitter who was in favor of gay marriage DID try to do something about it, it doesnt account for all the people who dont use Twitter and are against it.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Syntheticon posted...

these are views that don't advance us as a society

YOU DON'T DECIDE WHAT VIEWS "ADVANCE SOCIETY"

Lol

Syntheticon posted...

Explain to me how racist, xenophobic or homophobic views and behaviors are helping society to progress?

The whole point of having free expression is to not have to justify what you're saying. You can't say, "With that kind of speech, nothing of value was lost" because the value here is not having to justify what you say. And that was, inarguably, lost. And if you're going to say that only matters if I'm going to say those things, well I'm never going to get gay married either, so don't play that card.

But I'm going to bite anyway.

Maajid Nawaz has been listed in the SPLC as an anti-muslim extremist, and his criticism of Islam has been called hate speech, racist, xenophobic (or at least pandering to xenophobes). Look into what he's actually said about Islam and tell me with a straight face that we has to say isn't of value - that his ideas about de-radicalization don't "advance society".

So who decides what someone like that gets to say, and not say?

You? The SPLC? A government body that's made of equally flawed humans?

I personally don't think any of those answers suffice, but I'm seriously asking.
---

Surprised